Ukip, democracy and a biased BBC

Why did broadcasters have to be told to recognise Nigel Farage's party as a major contender in the election?

There is only one thing extraordinary about Ofcom’s landmark ruling that ITV and Channel 5 must treat Ukip like a ‘major party’ in the run-up to the EU elections in May: isn’t it disgraceful that the broadcasters needed to be told?

This paper holds no brief for Nigel Farage and his motley bag of followers.

But undeniably they represent a substantial proportion of voters who feel disenfranchised by the traditional parties’ contemptuous disregard for their views.

Indeed, polls put Ukip’s support at 19 per cent – only one point short of double the Lib Dems’ 10 per cent.

You might think any TV company that believed in democracy would insist on airing such a party’s election broadcasts – and giving ‘due weight’ to its views – without waiting for instructions.

But then our broadcasters have a shameful history of disseminating only those soft-Left opinions that coincide with their own.

For decades, the worst offender has been the BBC, which has abused its dominance to censor debate on such issues as mass, uncontrolled immigration and EU integration, while ruthlessly seeking to discredit those such as the Mail who have raised public concerns.

Though it has its own regulator – the supine Trust – the Corporation now promises to fall in with the Ofcom ruling, saying Ukip will receive ‘the same level of coverage as the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems’. It points out that Ukip was given election broadcasts in 2009 and will be given these again in 2014.

One cheer for the pledge. But only when we are able to judge its fairness to Ukip (and, for that matter, the Conservatives) will we know if the BBC finally trusts its licence-fee payers to hear all the arguments and judge for themselves.

Taxing their loyalty

How right David Cameron is to say: ‘There is no such thing as government money, only hard-working people’s money’.

And how shrewd to add that workers spend their own money best.

Indeed, there’s hardly a word he said yesterday with which this paper disagrees. No, it’s what he left out that troubles us.

Dangerous: David Cameron overlooked the millions of middle-earners dragged into the higher-rate tax band

Why, when he promises tax cuts, does he overlook the millions of middle-earners who have lost most from child benefit cuts while being dragged into the higher-rate tax band meant for the rich?

These are among the country’s most productive workers, ever aspiring to do better for their families. They are also the Conservative Party’s core constituency.

Mr Cameron neglects them at his peril.

Fleeced twice by PPI

Filling in a simple form, with no need for expert help, is all it takes for anyone to claim compensation for mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance.

So how depressing that £5billion of the cash paid out so far has gone straight into the pockets of PPI claims firms.

The upshot is that the public are ripped off twice – by the banks and then by the sharks who, too often, fail to spell out their fees for their unnecessary service.

To think this country’s financial industry was once revered for its integrity.

Britain’s secret police

For 18 days, until the Mail heard whispers of it on Monday, the authorities sat on the secret that one of David Cameron’s closest aides had been arrested over child porn allegations.

Did they really believe the electorate had no right to know – even after the National Crime Agency searched the inner sanctum of power at Number 10?

How many other arrests of patent public interest are among the hundreds these secret police are concealing?

Truly, the Leveson Inquiry has cast a chilling shroud over transparency in public life.